|
mindphlux posted:this. I make 25-40 an hour depending on tips, but all of my shifts are like 4 hours, and I would loving shoot myself if I had to do my job for 40 hours in a week, but I love being able to live off 25 hours a week. I do find it hilarious when states that don't have a tip credit (meaning you have to pay your servers the full minimum wage, instead of loving 2.15 or whatever and count tips towards minimum wage) bring up raising minimum wage a bunch of restaurant owners whine about how the front of house makes so much more than the kitchen because of tips, if you think your employees aren't making enough money, pay them more money, it's not rocket science.
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 09:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 08:58 |
|
|
You'd have to raise menu prices, and then nobody would come to your restaurant because You're The Guy That Charges $22-24 For Chicken. The only way to fix the industry is to do away with tip culture, so EVERY restaurant is forced to raise prices to keep the same profits.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 12:51
|
|
|
What do y'all think of those restaurants that have a surcharge per person that goes towards employees benefits? I think it's cool. I'd totally pay that and my usual 20% for meals running upwards of $100 with three people, and I'm a cheap bastard. edit: Oh, hey, San Fran looks like it actually mandates a health care charge. That's cool. Suspect Bucket fucked around with this message at 14:02 on Sep 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 13:58
|
|
|
Chef De Cuisinart posted:You'd have to raise menu prices, and then nobody would come to your restaurant because You're The Guy That Charges $22-24 For Chicken. There's actually a worker owned restaurant in my town that did away with tipping entirely in response to changes in the state tip pooling laws and they're doing really well. I've also seen a few articles pop up recently about other restaurants doing the same with good results. I think part of it might be the novelty of it though, and if more restaurants try to make the switch it might not go so well for the late adopters until it becomes the industry norm.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
Chef De Cuisinart posted:You'd have to raise menu prices, and then nobody would come to your restaurant because You're The Guy That Charges $22-24 For Chicken. The prices would not drastically rise like you think. If you just added .40-.50 cents onto every persons check you can easily afford to pay your employees a couple extra dollars an hour.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
goodness posted:The prices would not drastically rise like you think. If you just added .40-.50 cents onto every persons check you can easily afford to pay your employees a couple extra dollars an hour. I run a business, that is Not How That Works. Nice thought though...
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
I think that's a little disingenuous. It depends on your restaurant, and you'd certainly need to express it as raising average check price by X gives you enough extra income to pay an extra X per hour. That's a very important distinction -- payroll expressed as an hourly cost to keep a restaurant open and making money instead of some idiot's payrate, as anyone who has ever held a supervisory role can tell you. That being said, at the places I have worked there is generally more than enough net profit lying around to give everyone in BoH a $2/hr raise and have it not be a significant percentage of net profit. That doesn't change that ($12/hr * 33 hours) still isn't a living wage and that everyone is still going to need two jobs. Sure they could raise prices to pay people more, but why? There's really no reason to, and honestly for a publicly traded company they could get into a lot of poo poo with their investors for intentionally making less money without gaining some kind of justifiable competitive advantage (which is against the law in our glorious capitalist society). The positions that actually matter in companies and that actually have an impact on making large amounts of money are well compensated. The completely interchangeable revolving door of FoH and BoH staff, obviously, get screwed. It's your job to make sure you are part of the first group instead of the second, and fortunately there are a bunch of ways to go about that. Willie Tomg posted:Turns out the bad guys won the cold war. Namaste.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
mindphlux posted:I run a business, that is Not How That Works. Nice thought though... Can you explain how it is wrong? Another example is if McDonalds raised the minimum wage to 15$ their Big Mac would only go up by ~.25 http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/rele....3-percent.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
I remember when the ACA was first being debated and Papa John's came out and said "We'll have to raise our prices 13 cents a pizza to pay for this." My, and I think most sane people's, response was "It will only cost an extra13 cents a pie to give your employees health coverage, why the gently caress weren't you already doing that?"
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
Let's face it, business culture in America promotes those at the top being literal cackling supervillains because that hits the only metrics the investors and shareholders give a drat about. Walmart would run on literal slave labor and people kept in company towns and driven to debt slavery if the feds didn't keep reminding them that is still illegal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
My biggest project right now is restructuring the way we do payroll. I don't know what we're going to do yet, but it's probably going to be pretty drastic. Labor is by far our largest expense. The effective minimum wage in San Francisco is around $15.30/hour after mandatory sick pay, health benefits, municipal, state and federal taxes. This is for every hourly employee, including servers. Between that and the average retail lease price in downtown SF of $5/square foot, some of the restaurants we manage lose money if they do less than $160,0000/month in sales. Increasing menu prices definitely helps but it isn't the only solution. There aren't an infinite number of people willing to pay $19 for a cheeseburger- even if it's made from grass fed bison, comes with truffled parmesan french fries and house cured bacon and is served on a house baked bun. I think that a significant number of other metropolitan areas in the US are going to see similar increases in labor costs in the near future. The impact this has on full service restaurants will be interesting to see.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
It's definitely starting to happen in Austin. Cooks just don't want to work for $12 or less an hour. It's an uphill battle with corporate to increase my labor budget by 75k, but I'm gonna make it happen one way or another.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
Yea, I eat out very often and generally don't mind paying for quality but a burger that costs more then $15 w/ fries needs to be pretty life changing for me to be ok with it. I just checked, the best burg I have ever had, the Korean at the Little Goat in Chicago, cost $13 w/o fries. And that thing was so good I had to go back two days later to make sure it wasn't a fluke. Question, what in a restaurant generally has a better margin, food, beer/wine, or spirits?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
bunnielab posted:Yea, I eat out very often and generally don't mind paying for quality but a burger that costs more then $15 w/ fries needs to be pretty life changing for me to be ok with it. I just checked, the best burg I have ever had, the Korean at the Little Goat in Chicago, cost $13 w/o fries. And that thing was so good I had to go back two days later to make sure it wasn't a fluke. Spirits I'd say. Turn a cheap bottle of well liquor into 40(or more if you're a lovely place that waters the booze) $5 hi-balls.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
spirits, always spirits. Some food can, for insantce I have a half chicken on the menu that has a total plate cost of ~$2.70 that sells for $19, but I'm also getting in whole chickens and breaking them down. e: not to mention discount on buying your liquor in bulk. Hornitos is ~$20/btl, we sell 20 drinks out of it for $8/ea. That's like, 5% cost per drink, whereas food is usually 20-30% Chef De Cuisinart fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Sep 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
Mezzanon posted:Spirits I'd say. Turn a cheap bottle of well liquor into 40(or more if you're a lovely place that waters the booze) $5 hi-balls. When I worked at a hotel one of the bartenders told me that a bottle of Jack ended being something like $400 if you sold it just as straight shots.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Crazy Larry posted:When I worked at a hotel one of the bartenders told me that a bottle of Jack ended being something like $400 if you sold it just as straight shots. We charge $6 for a shot of fireball. We make so much money per btl on bachelor/bachelorette parties, its crazy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
I though that was the case but I have noticed that a lot of the places I go will sell decent beer at like $7-10 per bottle for stuff that cost like $10-13 per sixer retail, but will charge like $12-16 for a cocktail made with decent but not super premium liquor. It seems like lowering the price of mixed drinks closer to beer would help move more volume of a more profitable product. Restaurants are endlessly interesting to me, sorry if the questions are annoying.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
A liter bottle has 22 shots in it (i.e. 1.5 oz pours). At most places Jack Daniels won't be more than 7 or 8 bucks per shot, since that is an ultra rail spirit. At $8 per shot a bottle is $176 in revenue. There are a lot of factors in what a bottle will cost (volume of orders, relationship with distributors, etc.) but let's say you were on the expensive end and that bottle cost you $20. It's not quite $400 revenue per bottle, but it's a very tidy profit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
bunnielab posted:I though that was the case but I have noticed that a lot of the places I go will sell decent beer at like $7-10 per bottle for stuff that cost like $10-13 per sixer retail, but will charge like $12-16 for a cocktail made with decent but not super premium liquor. It seems like lowering the price of mixed drinks closer to beer would help move more volume of a more profitable product. Most of those $12-16 cocktails are made with more than one spirit thought, like a sazerac, or manhattan, etc. Most of your shot + mixer drinks will be anywhere from $3.50 to $8.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
Chef De Cuisinart posted:Most of those $12-16 cocktails are made with more than one spirit thought, like a sazerac, or manhattan, etc. Most of your shot + mixer drinks will be anywhere from $3.50 to $8. Specifically I was salty about a $14 Billit Rye Old Fashioned. The liquor is like $20-25 retail and I can't assume the bitters, cherry, and twist could be more then like $0.50 per drink. At the current price, I had two and switched to beer, at like $10, I would have had four or five of them. I am mostly thinking about places that "specialize" in cocktails. It seems odd that if spirits have such a good margin, why offer so many beer options? I would think they would want enough to keep non-liquor people happy but not so many at low enough prices to driver people away from the liquor. But I guess that most people don't have my drunkard's memory for booze prices.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
bunnielab posted:I though that was the case but I have noticed that a lot of the places I go will sell decent beer at like $7-10 per bottle for stuff that cost like $10-13 per sixer retail, but will charge like $12-16 for a cocktail made with decent but not super premium liquor. It seems like lowering the price of mixed drinks closer to beer would help move more volume of a more profitable product. The price of an individual drink isn't usually the limiting factor on how much a person drinks though - most people either have a set amount they want to spend or a certain number of drinks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
It works in Australia. Food is just really expensive in most places (especially Perth) but if someone asks you for a tip you just say "Here's a tip: go gently caress yourself, mate". I assume employees get paid reasonably well. My girlfriend was a waitress for years and she was making like $20-25 an hour. Dunno about kitchens but the lowest they can legally pay you is around 17 bucks. Edit: I dunno but it seems crazy to me that employers can shirk the responsibility of paying their employees directly onto their customers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 03:14
|
|
|
My restaurant is ducking killing me. It's not very busy tonight, and we're a pizza place with dine-in, delivery, and take out. Chit times are just loving bananas here. I haven't gone over three tables at the same time, and my average chit time is around 35 minutes. I know how long a pizza takes to cook (8 minutes) so I find this hosed. There's also 8 guys on line while this is happening.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 03:25
|
|
|
Chef De Cuisinart posted:It's definitely starting to happen in Austin. Cooks just don't want to work for $12 or less an hour. It's an uphill battle with corporate to increase my labor budget by 75k, but I'm gonna make it happen one way or another. Aww, cooks don't want to work for poverty wages. Good on 'em.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
Mezzanon posted:My restaurant is ducking killing me. It's not very busy tonight, and we're a pizza place with dine-in, delivery, and take out. Chit times are just loving bananas here. Why the gently caress do you have 8 guys on the line when it's dead?!?!?! Im in the same type of place and reading that almost made my head explode
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
A Man and his dog posted:Why the gently caress do you have 8 guys on the line when it's dead?!?!?! Becaus obviously you need 2 people making pizzas and putting them in the oven, one person pulling and cutting pizzas, and 5 people prepping for tomorrow!  Edit: I have a strong feeling that the owner is going to offer me a "promotion" in the near future, which will mean me working longer, shittier hours, and a ten dollar per hour pay cut on average. Mezzanon fucked around with this message at 04:46 on Sep 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
goodness posted:Can you explain how it is wrong? because the people setting the prices are looking at profit margins. it might be different (and should be, really) for large corporations like mcdonalds - I don't run a restaurant, so forgive me if this is wrong - but if you're an independent restaurant, and are looking at your food and labor costs for a menu item, you're probably pricing your food at what you think the market will pay - and then trying to do your best to minimize food and labor costs, so you have something left over to pay your fixed costs like energy, rent, investors, et cetera. I imagine, for most restaurant owners, the spread between your fixed operating expenses (rent, energy, etc) and your gross profit feels really personal. It's "your" "money", which of course you have to buy food and you have to pay for labor - but your business earned it goddamnit, and there's only so much of it. So like if someone miscooks a steak, or if a vendor tries to dump a bunch of produce on you that's on its way out, you're gonna be pissed. Same thing for increasing your labor costs across the board Because It's The Right Thing To Do - it's money out of your pocket, or at least that's what it feels like. I'll pitch a goddamn fit if a vendor tries to bill me for some bullshit, but for whatever reason credit card fees, bank charges, rent, loan payments - those all suck, but they are what they are - they don't feel personal. am I saying I wouldn't pay a good wage to people if I ran a restaurant? no, of course not! I think I'd make a great owner and would try to figure out some way to resolve the dumb FoH/BoH split so everyone makes money. But at the same time am I going to bump my prices up by $.50 just because "that's what it would cost to give my staff a meaningful raise?" when you divide the number of people working with X items sold at Y amount? hell no. I'm bumping that poo poo by $1.50 if I bump it at all. I have to pay taxes on my gross income, larger credit card fees on the transaction, there's a risk I'll sell less of whatever because of the price bump, et cetera et cetera - and plus, I just want to make money - why should I pay my staff more if I'm not bringing in a little bit more myself? so I don't know, it's just a complicated dynamic. I hope I don't come off as an rear end in a top hat or selfish in this post, but a business exists to make money. I strongly believe in paying a good wage (I was paying a kid out of highschool with no degree $20/hr for a basic tier one IT helpdesk poo poo job for instance), but I also understand how in the restaurant industry, there are a lot of loving moving parts, and the whole tipping and wage system in america is a nightmare, and dunno - I can see it from both angles.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 06:12
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:bring up raising minimum wage a bunch of restaurant owners whine about how the front of house makes so much more than the kitchen because of tips, if you think your employees aren't making enough money, pay them more money, it's not rocket science. never underestimate the eagerness that the working poor will cannibalize one another for scraps at my lovely call center job, management broke the union they had by saying "we really want to give you raises, but the darn unions won't let us  ". now people get their quarter a year raise and labor is slashed to the absolute bone.of course, since they're paying nothing, they get horrible employees. i get to pick my hours and i basically get paid to do homework 24 hours a week, but i feel really bad for the people there who don't have any other options. edit: mindphlux posted:so I don't know, it's just a complicated dynamic. I hope I don't come off as an rear end in a top hat or selfish in this post, but a business exists to make money. I strongly believe in paying a good wage (I was paying a kid out of highschool with no degree $20/hr for a basic tier one IT helpdesk poo poo job for instance), but I also understand how in the restaurant industry, there are a lot of loving moving parts, and the whole tipping and wage system in america is a nightmare, and dunno - I can see it from both angles. i don't know about running a business, but i'd pay the extra 20-30% in labor just to make sure my poo poo isn't entirely hosed up all the time and have a loyal, dedicated crew that is as committed to keeping my business thriving as i am 
Business Gorillas fucked around with this message at 08:21 on Sep 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 08:14
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:never underestimate the eagerness that the working poor will cannibalize one another for scraps righhhhttt, but you have to see how that cuts both ways, which is how I can see it from both angles. servers have that 'gently caress you got mine' attitude because they make more than whatever other server, who makes more than BoH, and higher up BoH probably has the same gently caress you attitude because they get paid more than the prep bitch, who gets paid more than the dishpit guy. all of these people (presumably) make a lot less money than the business owner / exec chef. and like you said, the "working poor will cannibalize one another for scraps" so why should a business owner give a significantly greater portion of scraps to any class in that hierarchy? people gossip and will lord it over one another, even though they're probably still not making a decent living. and then the business owner raises prices to a point where possibly business itself decreases? I dunno. I think the whole conversation has to change in order for any sort of minimum wage increase to make sense. not that I'm arguing against a minimum wage increase! I too would gladly pay extra for a loyal, dedicated crew, and I'm all for higher wages for industry workers, but I just feel like if you try to raise wages without addressing the 'gently caress you got mine' attitude, (and acknowledging that raising prices really could impact business), it just engenders shitshowerry. imho staff should all make about the same ($10-20/hr), and share tipout. managers should be salaried and get no tipout. That sounds fair to me, but it's apparently illegal.  thanks staff. it's also late and I could just be blabbering inane nonsense!
mindphlux fucked around with this message at 08:58 on Sep 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 08:49
|
|
|
No tips. We need to get rid of that poo poo. Pay everyone a liveable wage, and work around it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 13:37
|
|
|
Chef De Cuisinart posted:No tips. We need to get rid of that poo poo. Pay everyone a liveable wage, and work around it. Quoting this for truth. If you can't afford to pay your employees a livable wage, then you can't actually afford to pay for the labor you require to operate, and you are inevitably going to get what you pay for in terms of quality of help. That said, the biggest piece involving restaurants that always gets left out of the discussion on minimum wage is that if you up the take-home pay of the working poor, they're going to be spending more money, often with the same industry that pays them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 13:41
|
|
|
bunnielab posted:Specifically I was salty about a $14 Billit Rye Old Fashioned. The liquor is like $20-25 retail and I can't assume the bitters, cherry, and twist could be more then like $0.50 per drink. At the current price, I had two and switched to beer, at like $10, I would have had four or five of them. As an alcohol professional, I can tell you that Bulleit Rye wholesale is like $.9 to $1.10 per ounce. The amount of "creative discounts" though, especially states not in NY is staggering. Especially depending on the powerhouse that is selling it (and has money to flex).
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 14:31
|
|
|
bunnielab posted:Specifically I was salty about a $14 Billit Rye Old Fashioned. The liquor is like $20-25 retail and I can't assume the bitters, cherry, and twist could be more then like $0.50 per drink. At the current price, I had two and switched to beer, at like $10, I would have had four or five of them. Beer and liquor are not directly substitutable for most people and most people aren't trying to maximize their alcohol / dollar once they graduate college. In addition, prices are never a direct function of the underlying components, they are a function of what the market will accept, and people will pay more for fancy cocktails than they will for an equivalent amount of alcohol in beer. Probably because anyone can pop open a beer while making fancy cocktails requires an initial investment of time and money. bunnielab posted:I though that was the case but I have noticed that a lot of the places I go will sell decent beer at like $7-10 per bottle for stuff that cost like $10-13 per sixer retail, but will charge like $12-16 for a cocktail made with decent but not super premium liquor. It seems like lowering the price of mixed drinks closer to beer would help move more volume of a more profitable product. Why are you assuming the increase in sales will make up for the price drop? If they did their homework they have found the rough equilibrium between supply and demand to maximize the profit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
goodness posted:Can you explain how it is wrong? This study (almost certainly) assumes that part of the cost will simply be eaten by McDonalds (or the franchiser), there's a reason they limited the claims to fast food restaurants and not to the food industry as a whole. I doubt many family owned/ small restaurants have that sort of margin to work with and will probably have to raise their prices a lot more than what a fast food chain would.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:I doubt many family owned/ small restaurants have that sort of margin to work with and will probably have to raise their prices a lot more than what a fast food chain would. I think it varies and that there's more leeway in how restaurants compensate their employees then we assume. The place I work at now is a small 24 hour diner that does the majority of our business during breakfast/lunch (9-2) and we wouldn't be affected a ton because both of our owners work In the restaurant and already pay us well. Meanwhile our 3 main competitors are another local diner which would be screwed by a large change in minimum wage because of an absentee owner and low wages, a Bob Evans that is currently making GBS threads its pants at the thought of a min wage hike because they're notorious even among that company for poor pay, and the worker owned place which is currently thriving despite raising prices to pay for a move to a tipless model plus paying really well for the region.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
tl;dr I'd love to see CdC and the other management folks go all-out thesis with their thoughts on the subject of the last page or so. I'm curious (particularly from CdC) what specific changes would need to be made. A chain can afford to pay people a livable wage directly, but a lone mom-and-pop, or even a say, 5-restaurant private company, isn't likely to have that same option and I know that's been mentioned. As an example, P.F. Chang's can pay a decnet hourly wage (or hourly+tipshare) to bussers/food runners to help their servers; in the few mom-and-pops I've worked with, servers run food be/c why pay someone $12/hour out of your pocket to run food when you can put it on people who make $4/hr and get paid by your guest? I guess my focus is on how much of cheap restaurant practices and penny-pinching is for the sake of CEO/shareholder pocketlining and how much is implemented to keep the place afloat? IIRC, way back in this thread people were discussing restaurants that constantly run on the razor's edge of failure because they have such small margins; this was linked to the high % of failed attempts to open restaurants because you have to be on top of every dollar if you want to be profitable. And as much as a livable wage would be great, I think overall employee satisfaction is equally important. Happy employees provide better service, and a lot of people will gladly pay a bit more for great service. Great food doesn't balance the scales on terrible service (and vice versa) but I think most people get triggered (sorry) more quickly by service issues than food issues, at least in the minor sense. Again, no one is going to be pleased with their experience if their $15 burger tastes like a McDouble even if their server is the reincarnation of Gandhi. To me, this is where it's important (especially in a theoretical no-tip/livable wage environment) to have good managers, a good crew who want to be there, and a way to give employees a sense of pride and accomplishment in their work. On the other hand, there will always be underachievers and honestly there are a LOT of people who are simply not worth paying a livable wage to. What do we do with those people, and if Slacker Joe makes $15 for minimum viable effort, is it affordable to give the better cooks $18-20? I've also heard a lot of stories about old-school TGI Friday's/other places paying cooks $25 back in the day. What's changed? Also: FT job has been really pushing employees to fill out a new survey. The website blocks any attempts to connect with an anonymous IP. Somehow I think honest feedback would be more career suicide than something they're actually interested in receiving.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
Vorenus posted:And as much as a livable wage would be great, I think overall employee satisfaction is equally important. Happy employees provide better service, and a lot of people will gladly pay a bit more for great service. Great food doesn't balance the scales on terrible service (and vice versa) but I think most people get triggered (sorry) more quickly by service issues than food issues, at least in the minor sense. Again, no one is going to be pleased with their experience if their $15 burger tastes like a McDouble even if their server is the reincarnation of Gandhi. While I'm not in the industry, enough of my friends are, and I have my own (non food) business - here's where most people make the mistake: "A lot of people" is not "all the people". Pulling percentages out of my rear end to make an example: 50% of your customer base may be willing to pay more, but what you need is 100% of your base to pay more. And for that remaining 50% who aren't - you need to replace them (but that's not really possible). So you drop your margins to get more customers (costs went up 10%, but raise prices 5% = net -5%) - but here's the mind gently caress - you're already at customer equilibrium if you're established, so in fact your costs are having to go even higher with new marketing to get more customers (now net -10%). And if you're at 100% physical capacity already, well, hate to say, your life is poo poo now since you can't fit the people. Or you raise your margins to cover the loss of customers. Now you're talking a 15% price increase (= net +5%), but instead of 50%, only 40% of your customers are happy and sales are down (profit = -5%), so now you add a marketing budget (net = 0%), and let's hope that's better than your neighbor's in replacing those lost sales. It's a vicious cycle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Vorenus posted:tl;dr I'd love to see CdC and the other management folks go all-out thesis with their thoughts on the subject of the last page or so. I've worked management in both corporate and mom and pop places and it's not that simple. There are a variety of factors that weigh into whether or not a restaurant can afford to pay living wages and a lot of them go beyond whether or not it's a chain. For instance the chain restaurants in my region all pay lovely wages because we're a college town so there's an endless supply of cheap labor and having a bad reputation takes a long time to actually affect their bottom line because there's a constant influx of new customers that will eat there because the Applebee's back home was good. And even though most people in this thread say that hotels are great to work for the absolute worst cooking job I've ever had was a corporate run hotel because the corporate management was absolutely awful. The mom and pop restaurants in this area run the gamut from awful to amazing to work for. There are at least two other mom and pops besides the one I currently work at that I could be content working for for the rest of my working life if I had to. There are also some that I'd rather go work at a McDonald's then work at. In the long run any major change in the way we pay restaurant employees would likely result in there being fewer restaurants overall, but the ones that remain being more stable and successful. You'd see a lot less that pop up and shut down in a six month period.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 08:58 |
|
|
A lot of notable restaurants are moving away from tips in NYC -- Colicchio just made an annoucement as well, which adds to Dirt Candy (shes Canadian) and Per Se of course, a few others too. I think the pushback from the customers also is going to come from service quality: "I'm a cool dude that always tips 20% for good service. If the waitron is already getting paid $15 an hour, what the gently caress do they care about impressing me anymore?" or "Im a dick that never tips 20% and now you're forcing me to? gently caress you!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 18:43
|
|